[GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era
Oh dear Stevan. When I try to help you I get rubbished. You really have to stop using knee-jerk reactions. I fully agree Pay-per-view (PPV) is not ideal, and you know that I know it better than most. I was responding to your very off-target message about 'anarchic' practices (green) vs 'systemic' (gold). Neither is an accurate epithet. We both want open access to articles, not toll access, and we know it will be cheaper. I think that totally deals succinctly with your points (1), (2), 3), (4), (5), (6), and (8). That leaves points (7), (9) and (10). While I agree that Green OA is the potentially faster and cheaper route, it simply ain't going to happen soon. Maybe it might if the OA movement got behind the Titanium route. There simply isn't the wish amongst researchers, funders, universities or the governments to push Green OA. So much for point (7). The Green route leads to another couple of lost decades. As to (9) and (10) I was taking the point of view of a systemic bureaucrat (aka devil's advocate). Green mandates are a lost cause. They have failed to have an impact after too many years. Looking at the global research publication system, it is anti-competitive as an industry, calling out for strong competition. What better than to provide some? Arthur From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Tuesday, 7 August 2012 1:57 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era Dear Arthur, (1) For years and years I did not refer to toll-access as subscription access but as subscription/license/pay-per-view (S/L/PPV). (Google the AmSci Forum archives in the late 90's and early 2000's and I'll find countless instances.) PPV is neither satisfactory for most users nor is it affordable, scalable or sustainable for most institutions. (If it were, subscriptions would already be cancelled unsustainably. PPV is a parasitic niche market.) (2) S/L/PPV are all forms of toll access, and I don't believe for a second that any of them provides sufficient access. (3) That's why I (and many others) have been struggling for open access (OA). (4) It is true that where we are now [is]paying to read articles (5) But for me it is certainly not true that where we want to be [is] paying to publish articles (6) Where I want to be (and have wanted to be for two decades) is OA: toll-free online access to articles. (7) I also think the fastest, surest, most direct and cheapest way to 100% OA is to mandate Green Gratis OA. (8) I also happen to expect that 100% Green OA will lead to Gold Libre OA (pay-to-publish) and the total cost will be far lower than is was with S/L/PPV. (9) If Finch had done a better analysis, then instead of squandering scarce research money to pay extra for pre-emptive Gold OA, they would have extended and strengthened UK's cost-free Green OA mandates. (10) I'm hoping RCUK may still have the sense and integrity to fix its policy and do just that. Stevan On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Arthur Sale a...@ozemail.com.au wrote: I completely follow your argument Stevan, and agree with it, as far as it goes. There is however an aspect that you have not covered, and you should include it in your analysis. You write as though reader-side subscriptions were the only alternative to author-side publishing fees as a way of funding publishers. (As ways of funding access one must add green access too, to save you telling me so.) In fact many universities have another option: pay-per-view. The University of Tasmania (mine) has had a system of this sort in place since at least 1998, whereby any researcher can request (online in the intranet) an article from any journal to which the University does not subscribe, and the Document Delivery service will provide an e-copy (usually a pdf) usually within two days. Yes this is not instant, but serious researchers are prepared to wait that long, despite the nay-sayers. The University picks up the cost up to a reasonable limit; if the cost is over the Department has to agree to fund the difference. This seldom happens, and when it does it is for expensive journals in Mining, etc. The interesting thing is that this is an system that you describe as anarchically growing, article-by-article, rather than the journal-by-journal or publisher bundle system. It has enabled the University of Tasmania to cancel many of the subscriptions that it previously held, and still come out in front. Better still, it has enabled the practical closure of the print journal accessioning system (where online versions are available), saving substantial salaries. We know for example that researchers seldom [physically] visit our [physical] libraries these days, they access articles online. If we ever reached the state where we relied on this system totally, then a per-article viewing fee would be easy to compare with
[GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era
Steven Harnad has had and still has an enormous influence on the open access question. But the way he pushes for has, sorry to say, in practice shown not to be able to compet with the market. That is a fact that the British government now recogineses and the rest of the world will follow. The Great Leap in China failed in the same way the green way has failed. What we now can see is a paradigm shift. Now we have to support the free e-journal movement, not by forcing scientists and scholars to accept open access but by cooperate with them in the competion with mainly the global STM industry. It's not going to be easy. But more and more new journals are free e-journals. The rise is spectacular. Latin America has shown the way we have to take. Jan 2012/8/7 Arthur Sale a...@ozemail.com.au: Oh dear Stevan. When I try to help you I get rubbished. You really have to stop using knee-jerk reactions. I fully agree Pay-per-view (PPV) is not ideal, and you know that I know it better than most. I was responding to your very off-target message about ‘anarchic’ practices (green) vs ‘systemic’ (gold). Neither is an accurate epithet. We both want open access to articles, not toll access, and we know it will be cheaper. I think that totally deals succinctly with your points (1), (2), 3), (4), (5), (6), and (8). That leaves points (7), (9) and (10). While I agree that Green OA is the potentially faster and cheaper route, it simply ain’t going to happen soon. Maybe it might if the OA movement got behind the Titanium route. There simply isn’t the wish amongst researchers, funders, universities or the governments to push Green OA. So much for point (7). The Green route leads to another couple of lost decades. As to (9) and (10) I was taking the point of view of a systemic bureaucrat (aka devil’s advocate). Green mandates are a lost cause. They have failed to have an impact after too many years. Looking at the global research publication system, it is anti-competitive as an industry, calling out for strong competition. What better than to provide some? Arthur From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Tuesday, 7 August 2012 1:57 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era Dear Arthur, (1) For years and years I did not refer to toll-access as subscription access but as subscription/license/pay-per-view (S/L/PPV). (Google the AmSci Forum archives in the late 90's and early 2000's and I'll find countless instances.) PPV is neither satisfactory for most users nor is it affordable, scalable or sustainable for most institutions. (If it were, subscriptions would already be cancelled unsustainably. PPV is a parasitic niche market.) (2) S/L/PPV are all forms of toll access, and I don't believe for a second that any of them provides sufficient access. (3) That's why I (and many others) have been struggling for open access (OA). (4) It is true that where we are now [is]paying to read articles (5) But for me it is certainly not true that where we want to be [is] paying to publish articles (6) Where I want to be (and have wanted to be for two decades) is OA: toll-free online access to articles. (7) I also think the fastest, surest, most direct and cheapest way to 100% OA is to mandate Green Gratis OA. (8) I also happen to expect that 100% Green OA will lead to Gold Libre OA (pay-to-publish) and the total cost will be far lower than is was with S/L/PPV. (9) If Finch had done a better analysis, then instead of squandering scarce research money to pay extra for pre-emptive Gold OA, they would have extended and strengthened UK's cost-free Green OA mandates. (10) I'm hoping RCUK may still have the sense and integrity to fix its policy and do just that. Stevan On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Arthur Sale a...@ozemail.com.au wrote: I completely follow your argument Stevan, and agree with it, as far as it goes. There is however an aspect that you have not covered, and you should include it in your analysis. You write as though reader-side subscriptions were the only alternative to author-side publishing fees as a way of funding publishers. (As ways of funding access one must add green access too, to save you telling me so.) In fact many universities have another option: pay-per-view. The University of Tasmania (mine) has had a system of this sort in place since at least 1998, whereby any researcher can request (online in the intranet) an article from any journal to which the University does not subscribe, and the Document Delivery service will provide an e-copy (usually a pdf) usually within two days. Yes this is not instant, but serious researchers are prepared to wait that long, despite the nay-sayers. The University picks up the cost up to a reasonable limit; if the cost is over the
[GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era
We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone pays the costs. All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid for somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact, there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear). I can only see three options for who pays: reader-side (e.g. the library); author-side (e.g. publication fees); or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. sponsor). Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Jan Szczepanski Sent: 07 August 2012 10:37 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era Steven Harnad has had and still has an enormous influence on the open access question. But the way he pushes for has, sorry to say, in practice shown not to be able to compet with the market. That is a fact that the British government now recogineses and the rest of the world will follow. The Great Leap in China failed in the same way the green way has failed. What we now can see is a paradigm shift. Now we have to support the free e-journal movement, not by forcing scientists and scholars to accept open access but by cooperate with them in the competion with mainly the global STM industry. It's not going to be easy. But more and more new journals are free e-journals. The rise is spectacular. Latin America has shown the way we have to take. Jan 2012/8/7 Arthur Sale a...@ozemail.com.au: Oh dear Stevan. When I try to help you I get rubbished. You really have to stop using knee-jerk reactions. I fully agree Pay-per-view (PPV) is not ideal, and you know that I know it better than most. I was responding to your very off-target message about 'anarchic' practices (green) vs 'systemic' (gold). Neither is an accurate epithet. We both want open access to articles, not toll access, and we know it will be cheaper. I think that totally deals succinctly with your points (1), (2), 3), (4), (5), (6), and (8). That leaves points (7), (9) and (10). While I agree that Green OA is the potentially faster and cheaper route, it simply ain't going to happen soon. Maybe it might if the OA movement got behind the Titanium route. There simply isn't the wish amongst researchers, funders, universities or the governments to push Green OA. So much for point (7). The Green route leads to another couple of lost decades. As to (9) and (10) I was taking the point of view of a systemic bureaucrat (aka devil's advocate). Green mandates are a lost cause. They have failed to have an impact after too many years. Looking at the global research publication system, it is anti-competitive as an industry, calling out for strong competition. What better than to provide some? Arthur From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Tuesday, 7 August 2012 1:57 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era Dear Arthur, (1) For years and years I did not refer to toll-access as subscription access but as subscription/license/pay-per-view (S/L/PPV). (Google the AmSci Forum archives in the late 90's and early 2000's and I'll find countless instances.) PPV is neither satisfactory for most users nor is it affordable, scalable or sustainable for most institutions. (If it were, subscriptions would already be cancelled unsustainably. PPV is a parasitic niche market.) (2) S/L/PPV are all forms of toll access, and I don't believe for a second that any of them provides sufficient access. (3) That's why I (and many others) have been struggling for open access (OA). (4) It is true that where we are now [is]paying to read articles (5) But for me it is certainly not true that where we want to be [is] paying to publish articles (6) Where I want to be (and have wanted to be for two decades) is OA: toll-free online access to articles. (7) I also think the fastest, surest, most direct and cheapest way to 100% OA is to mandate Green Gratis OA. (8) I also happen to expect that 100% Green OA will lead to Gold Libre OA (pay-to-publish) and the total cost will be far lower than is was with S/L/PPV. (9) If Finch had done a better analysis, then instead of squandering scarce research money to pay extra for pre-emptive Gold OA, they would have extended and strengthened UK's cost-free Green OA mandates. (10) I'm hoping RCUK may still have the sense and integrity to fix its policy and do just that. Stevan On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Arthur Sale a...@ozemail.com.au wrote: I completely follow your argument Stevan, and agree with it, as far as it goes.
[GOAL] Re: First use of the phrase open access?
Stevan,
I would have guessed BOAI as the first OFFICIAL use. I'm trying to ferret-out
the PRE-HISTORY of the term--even its informal, coincidental or unconscious
use--LEADING UP to the conscious decision of those involved in BOAI (including
yourself, Stevan) to call this thing that we're all now talking about open
access.
Thanks.
Gary F. Daught
Omega Alpha | Open Access
http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com
Advocate for open access academic publishing in religion and theology
oa.openaccess@ gmail.com | @OAopenaccess
On Aug 7, 2012, at 12:25 AM, goal-requ...@eprints.org wrote:
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 00:00:01 -0400
From: Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: [GOAL] Re: First use of the phrase open access?
To: Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)
goal@eprints.org
Message-ID: c0192983-2881-49bf-b9c7-a2ba62f42...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
The term became official with Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI)
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read
On 2012-08-06, at 6:29 PM, Omega Alpha | Open Access wrote:
Greetings. Does anyone know who/when first used the phrase open access to
refer to toll free publication and/or access to scholarly literature, though
not necessarily yet as a technical term?
Could this be a candidate? I'm reading the transcript of Stevan Harnad's
presentation: Implementing Peer review on the Net: Scientific Quality
Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals in the Proceedings of the 1993
International Conference on Refereed Electronic Journals, 1-2 October1993.
Winnipeg: University of Manitoba, 1994, 8.1-8.14, and come across the
following excerpt:
Enter anonymous ftp ('file transfer protocol'--a means of retrieving
electronic files interactively). The paper chase proceeds at its usual tempo
while an alternative means of distributing first preprints and then reprints
is implemented electronically. An electronic draft is stored in a 'public'
electronic archive at the author's institution from which anyone in the
world can retrieve at any time?.The reader can now retrieve the paper for
himself, instantly, and without ever needing to bother the author, from
anywhere in the world where the Internet stretches--which is to say, in
principle, from any institution of research or higher learning where a
fellow-scholar is likely to be.
Splendid, n'est-ce pas? The author-scholar's yearning is fulfilled: open
access to his work for the world peer community. The reader-scholar's needs
and hopes are well served: free access to the world scholarly literature (or
as free as a login on the Internet is to an institutionally affiliated
academic or researcher)?. (8.4-8.5)
The use here is clearly not yet technical, and yet it has all the earmarks
of future application. The words access, open, and free are used
repeatedly in the Proceedings, but I was unable to find any the phrase open
access was used elsewhere.
I suppose the next question would be: At what point did this informal and
(perhaps) coincidental use become formalized into a technical signifier?
Curious and interested.
Gary F. Daught
Omega Alpha | Open Access
http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com
Advocate for open access academic publishing in religion and theology
oa.openaccess@ gmail.com | @OAopenaccess
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] ROARMAP: Louvain Catholic University Adopts Green Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate (U Liege ID/OA Model)
** Cross-Posted** The Catholic University of Louvain has adopted a self-archiving mandate with the same incentives and obligations as the University of Liege model. In its meeting of 2 July the Academic Council of UCK adopted a policy of mandatory deposit in its DIAL http://www.uclouvain.be/360285.html repository of all bibliographic metadata as well as full-texts as of 1 January 2013. As of that date, the Academic Council will only consider duly deposited publications in its internal research performance evaluations and that deposit will also be one of the criteria in the allocation of institutional research funds. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Arthur Sale a...@ozemail.com.au wrote: *SH:* (9) (10) *I'm hoping RCUK may still have the sense and integrity to fix its policy [by] extend[ing] and strengthen[ing] UK's cost-free Green OA mandates… instead of [just] squandering scarce research money to pay extra for pre-emptive Gold OA...* *AS:* As to (9) and (10) I was taking the point of view of a systemic bureaucrat (aka devil’s advocate)…. it simply ain’t going to happen soon... Don't lose hope just yet, Arthur. I have received the following (unofficial) response from a member of the group planning the implementation of the RCUK policy: I have been following the email debate which you have instigated and as part of that the suggestions you have made… The points you have made are quite clear and will be taken into consideration whilst we work on the detailed implementation of our policy. And there's the EC policy, which is already extending and strengthening its Green OA mandate. And there's FRPAA pending in the US. And there's all the universities and research institutions of the world. Yes, it's been a long slog, much too long. But it ain't over yet! Stevan Harnad ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone pays the costs. All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid for somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact, there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear). I can only see three options for who pays: reader-side (e.g. the library); author-side (e.g. publication fees); or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. sponsor). There is a fourth option, which works: the scholarly community manage publication through contributed labour and resources and the net amount of cash is near-zero. This is described in http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/where the J. Machine Learning Research is among the highest regarded journals in the area (top 7%) and free-to-authors and free-to-readers. There is an enlightening debate (on this URL) between those who run the journal and Kent Anderson of the Scholarly Kitchen who cannot believe that people will run and work for journals for the good of the community. There is no law of physics that says this doesn't scale. It is simply that most scholars would rather the taxpayer and students paid for the administration publishing (either as author-side or reader-side) so the scholars don't have to do the work. And they've managed ot get 10 B USD per year. If scholars regarded publishing as part of their role, of if they were prepared to involved the wider community (as Wikipedia has done) we could have a much more C21 type of activity - innovative and valuable to the whole world rather than just academia. It would cost zero, but it would be much cheaper than any current model. And of course we now have a complete free map of the whole world ( openstreetmap.org) which is so much better than other alternatives that many people and organizations are switching to it. And, for many years, it didn't have a bank account and existed on marginal resources from UCL (and probably still does). But most people will regard this as another fairy tale. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: First use of the phrase open access?
On 2012-08-07, at 7:28 AM, Omega Alpha | Open Access wrote:
Stevan,
I would have guessed BOAI as the first OFFICIAL use. I'm trying to
ferret-out the PRE-HISTORY of the term--even its informal, coincidental or
unconscious use--LEADING UP to the conscious decision of those involved in
BOAI (including yourself, Stevan) to call this thing that we're all now
talking about open access.
Gary,
My own recall is this:
The issue, from the late 1980's onward was making *online access* to
refereed research free for all instead of just *toll-access* (subscription,
license, pay-per-view) for those at institutions that could afford to pay.
The inspiration was the Internet and Web itself (starting with anonymous
FTP). Computer scientists (and later physicists) were providing free online
access to their papers early on (computer scientists as of at least the
'80's and physicists as of the early '90's).
The words open access were no doubt pronounced and written during that
period (as you saw below), but they were simply informal verbal
descriptions of what was needed and what people were providing. There were
other ways of referring to it too, but all concerned *online access*, free
for all, as opposed to toll-access, for subscribers only. My own use was
very explicitly based on contrasting it with *toll access*.
The term open access only became official with the BOAI, and I can tell
you that several terms were considered in a prior list discussion. The
choice was very explicitly influenced by the fact that we were trying to
encourage author self-archiving, and that 2 years earlier in 1999 the Open
Archives Initiative (originally called the Universal Preprint Service
and then the Santa Fe Convention) had created the OAI protocol for making
*Open Archives* (later called repositories) interoperable with one
another. So we consciously chose Open Access in order to make a clear
link between the two Initiatives (BOAI and OAI).
I can also remember a distinct moment (in 1999) in a conversation with
Herbert van Sompel when it was decided (by Herbert) to call Open Archives
Open Archives (following some list discussion of various potential names).
Hope that helps. Maybe OAI's Herbert von de Sompel or BOAI's Peter Suber
will have further recollections.
Stevan Harnad
Thanks.
Gary F. Daught
Omega Alpha | Open Access
http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com
Advocate for open access academic publishing in religion and theology
oa.openaccess@ gmail.com | @OAopenaccess
On Aug 7, 2012, at 12:25 AM, goal-requ...@eprints.org wrote:
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 00:00:01 -0400
From: Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
The term became official with Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI)
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read
On 2012-08-06, at 6:29 PM, Omega Alpha | Open Access wrote:
Greetings. Does anyone know who/when first used the phrase open access to
refer to toll free publication and/or access to scholarly literature,
though not necessarily yet as a technical term?
Could this be a candidate? I'm reading the transcript of Stevan Harnad's
presentation: Implementing Peer review on the Net: Scientific Quality
Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals in the Proceedings of the 1993
International Conference on Refereed Electronic Journals, 1-2 October1993.
Winnipeg: University of Manitoba, 1994, 8.1-8.14, and come across the
following excerpt:
Enter anonymous ftp ('file transfer protocol'--a means of retrieving
electronic files interactively). The paper chase proceeds at its usual
tempo while an alternative means of distributing first preprints and then
reprints is implemented electronically. An electronic draft is stored in a
'public' electronic archive at the author's institution from which anyone
in the world can retrieve at any time?.The reader can now retrieve the
paper for himself, instantly, and without ever needing to bother the
author, from anywhere in the world where the Internet stretches--which is
to say, in principle, from any institution of research or higher learning
where a fellow-scholar is likely to be.
Splendid, n'est-ce pas? The author-scholar's yearning is fulfilled: open
access to his work for the world peer community. The reader-scholar's needs
and hopes are well served: free access to the world scholarly literature
(or as free as a login on the Internet is to an institutionally affiliated
academic or researcher)?. (8.4-8.5)
The use here is clearly not yet technical, and yet it has all the earmarks
of future application. The words access, open, and free are used
repeatedly in the Proceedings, but I was unable to find any the phrase
open access was used elsewhere.
I suppose the next question would be: At what point did this informal and
(perhaps) coincidental use become formalized into a technical signifier?
Curious and interested.
Gary F. Daught
Omega Alpha | Open Access
http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com
Advocate for open access academic publishing in religion and theology
[GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era
Peter is correct that there is a fourth way to achieve OA, and Sally is right that each of them has costs, though in Peter's volunteer effort scenario, the costs are largely hidden. Can I go back to my snooze now please? Charles Professor Charles Oppenheim --- On Tue, 7/8/12, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: From: Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk Subject: [GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' goal@eprints.org Date: Tuesday, 7 August, 2012, 16:00 Do you think that doesn't entail cost? The people who are doing this work 'free' (and the computer services provided 'free', etc) are all in reality being paid by someone to do their 'real' jobs. And, presumably, the amount of time devoted to those 'real' jobs is accordingly reduced. Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust Sent: 07 August 2012 15:12 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone pays the costs. All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid for somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact, there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear). I can only see three options for who pays: reader-side (e.g. the library); author-side (e.g. publication fees); or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. sponsor). There is a fourth option, which works: the scholarly community manage publication through contributed labour and resources and the net amount of cash is near-zero. This is described in http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ where the J. Machine Learning Research is among the highest regarded journals in the area (top 7%) and free-to-authors and free-to-readers. There is an enlightening debate (on this URL) between those who run the journal and Kent Anderson of the Scholarly Kitchen who cannot believe that people will run and work for journals for the good of the community. There is no law of physics that says this doesn't scale. It is simply that most scholars would rather the taxpayer and students paid for the administration publishing (either as author-side or reader-side) so the scholars don't have to do the work. And they've managed ot get 10 B USD per year. If scholars regarded publishing as part of their role, of if they were prepared to involved the wider community (as Wikipedia has done) we could have a much more C21 type of activity - innovative and valuable to the whole world rather than just academia. It would cost zero, but it would be much cheaper than any current model. And of course we now have a complete free map of the whole world (openstreetmap.org) which is so much better than other alternatives that many people and organizations are switching to it. And, for many years, it didn't have a bank account and existed on marginal resources from UCL (and probably still does). But most people will regard this as another fairy tale. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era
Do you think that doesn't entail cost? The people who are doing this work 'free' (and the computer services provided 'free', etc) are all in reality being paid by someone to do their 'real' jobs. And, presumably, the amount of time devoted to those 'real' jobs is accordingly reduced. Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk _ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust Sent: 07 August 2012 15:12 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone pays the costs. All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid for somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact, there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear). I can only see three options for who pays: reader-side (e.g. the library); author-side (e.g. publication fees); or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. sponsor). There is a fourth option, which works: the scholarly community manage publication through contributed labour and resources and the net amount of cash is near-zero. This is described in http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ where the J. Machine Learning Research is among the highest regarded journals in the area (top 7%) and free-to-authors and free-to-readers. There is an enlightening debate (on this URL) between those who run the journal and Kent Anderson of the Scholarly Kitchen who cannot believe that people will run and work for journals for the good of the community. There is no law of physics that says this doesn't scale. It is simply that most scholars would rather the taxpayer and students paid for the administration publishing (either as author-side or reader-side) so the scholars don't have to do the work. And they've managed ot get 10 B USD per year. If scholars regarded publishing as part of their role, of if they were prepared to involved the wider community (as Wikipedia has done) we could have a much more C21 type of activity - innovative and valuable to the whole world rather than just academia. It would cost zero, but it would be much cheaper than any current model. And of course we now have a complete free map of the whole world (openstreetmap.org) which is so much better than other alternatives that many people and organizations are switching to it. And, for many years, it didn't have a bank account and existed on marginal resources from UCL (and probably still does). But most people will regard this as another fairy tale. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] A report on open access and repositories from Japan's MEXT.
Dear colleagues, I am glad to have an opportunity to let you know that Japan's Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology(MEXT) released a report of the discussion of open access to scholarly research results on a workgroup for scholarly communication infrastructure in July. Unfortunately, as we have no official English translation of the report, you may not be able to have direct full access to it, but hoping its URLs will be a help, let me quote them: (Executive Summary) http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/gijyutu/gijyutu4/toushin/attach/1323861.htm (Full text) http://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/shingi/toushin/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2012/08/02/1323890_1_1.pdf The workgroup, chaired by Professor Setsuo Arikawa, President, Kyushu University, consists of experts and scholars in scholarly communication, and discusses topics including university libraries, campus computing and networking within the scheme of MEXT's Council of Science, Technology and Scholarship. It has spent about a year working on the issues around society publishing, open access and institutional repositories and compiled the report, which comprises five chapters: 1. the provision of scholarly communication infrastructure and the enhancement of dissemination and communication of scholarly information; 2. the remodeling of a category in the JSPS grand-in-aids for the improved dissemination of scholarly outcomes by way of periodical publication; 3. the promotion of open access to research results from competitively funded research activities; 4. the enhancement of the scholarly dissemination by way of institutional repositories; 5. the improved collaboration among the government controlled agencies involved scholarly communication, including the National Institute of Informatics(NII), Japan Science and Technolgy Agency(JST), the National Diet Library(NDL) and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science(JSPS). Chapter 1 introduces the range of topics and explains the backgrounds. Chapter 2 proposes a remodeling of the category in the funding scheme for journal publishing which has been mainly made use of by Japanese society publishers to compensate for deficits in their publishing operations. The proposed new model focuses on enhanced contribution to the increased variety and future sustainability of the scholarly communication worldwide by the scholarly publishing activities which originate in Japan. Within the proposed scheme, which, as a whole, replaces the foregoing subsidies for print periodical publishing, there is a new category earmarked for projects that aim at a launch of or a conversion to open access publishing model. Chapter 3 endorses the importance of the open access to research results in general and to those funded by public subsidies in particular and discusses the various methods for its implementation, from golden open access journal publishing to green open access by way of repositories, and suggests that, for the time being, institutional repositories be to be made full use of as a means of making research available to society. Chapter 4 discusses the current status and future perspectives of institutional repositories implemented by universities, colleges and research institutions in Japan. More than 250 educational and research institutions, which account for a quarter of such organizations, were started in last five years and now provide, open to the public, more than one million full text scholarly achievements including peer reviewed journal articles, unrefreed but academically substantial outcomes from the faculty, theses and dissertations, learning materials and scientific data. The report takes the repositories seriously as a platform for institutional accountability and scientific dissemination and requests the institutions and their researchers to support the continued and upgraded operation of repositories. Chapter 5 discusses and recommends a set of possible, and partly realized, collaborations among the different institutions with different backgrounds which, though, work in the field of scholarly communication. Those of you who are interested in further details in the absence of the official English translation may post specific questions to this list in the hope that some of my colleagues will reply. SHUTO Makoto Cheif, University Library Unit Office for Science Information Infrastructure Information Division, Research Promotion Bureau Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era
There's also the considerable risk that the journal will not be sustainable under such a model. Once the volunteers lose interest, retire, or whatever, others may not be willing to take on the work and the institution behind it may no longer want to support it. As Sally said, there are real costs to such enterprises, they are just well masked within the infrastructure and staffing budgets for the sponsoring organizations. Mary Summerfield Publications Business Development Manager SPIE +1 360 685 5588 (Office) +1 360 647 1445 (Fax) mar...@spie.orgmailto:mar...@spie.org SPIE is the international society for optics and photonics. SPIE.orghttp://www.spie.org/ Learn about SPIE Press Bookshttp://spie.org/x31646.xml and SPIE Journalshttps://spie.org/documents/publications/journals/journal-brochure-10-11-L.pdf. SPIE CONFIDENTIAL From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Sally Morris Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 8:00 AM To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Subject: [GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era Do you think that doesn't entail cost? The people who are doing this work 'free' (and the computer services provided 'free', etc) are all in reality being paid by someone to do their 'real' jobs. And, presumably, the amount of time devoted to those 'real' jobs is accordingly reduced. Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.ukmailto:sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org]mailto:[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust Sent: 07 August 2012 15:12 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.ukmailto:sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone pays the costs. All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid for somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact, there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear). I can only see three options for who pays: reader-side (e.g. the library); author-side (e.g. publication fees); or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. sponsor). There is a fourth option, which works: the scholarly community manage publication through contributed labour and resources and the net amount of cash is near-zero. This is described in http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ where the J. Machine Learning Research is among the highest regarded journals in the area (top 7%) and free-to-authors and free-to-readers. There is an enlightening debate (on this URL) between those who run the journal and Kent Anderson of the Scholarly Kitchen who cannot believe that people will run and work for journals for the good of the community. There is no law of physics that says this doesn't scale. It is simply that most scholars would rather the taxpayer and students paid for the administration publishing (either as author-side or reader-side) so the scholars don't have to do the work. And they've managed ot get 10 B USD per year. If scholars regarded publishing as part of their role, of if they were prepared to involved the wider community (as Wikipedia has done) we could have a much more C21 type of activity - innovative and valuable to the whole world rather than just academia. It would cost zero, but it would be much cheaper than any current model. And of course we now have a complete free map of the whole world (openstreetmap.orghttp://openstreetmap.org) which is so much better than other alternatives that many people and organizations are switching to it. And, for many years, it didn't have a bank account and existed on marginal resources from UCL (and probably still does). But most people will regard this as another fairy tale. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era
...and don't forget the cost of printing, paper, glue and postage stamps in the original print version, O Digerati: last time I checked, they weren't being given away for nothing. While much of the Open Access discussion only applies to digital objects, these existential OA cost comparisons must include the costs of paper versions as well. where there is a paper version at all, Or are we only talking about that motherless object, the online-only journal (useless to many in most developing countries)? Best, Chris Chris Zielinski Coordinator, African Health Observartory and Managing Editor, African Health Monitor WHO Regional Office for Africa BP06 Cité du Djoué, Brazzaville, Congo Brazzaville T: +47 241 39935 M: +242-068 29 79 49 F: +47 241 39503 Geneva: M+41 799 40 3662 Skype: chris.zielinski1 e-mail: zielins...@afro.who.intmailto:zielins...@afro.who.int From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Sally Morris Sent: 07 August 2012 16:00 To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Subject: [GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era Do you think that doesn't entail cost? The people who are doing this work 'free' (and the computer services provided 'free', etc) are all in reality being paid by someone to do their 'real' jobs. And, presumably, the amount of time devoted to those 'real' jobs is accordingly reduced. Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.ukmailto:sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org]mailto:[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust Sent: 07 August 2012 15:12 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.ukmailto:sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone pays the costs. All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid for somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact, there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear). I can only see three options for who pays: reader-side (e.g. the library); author-side (e.g. publication fees); or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. sponsor). There is a fourth option, which works: the scholarly community manage publication through contributed labour and resources and the net amount of cash is near-zero. This is described in http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ where the J. Machine Learning Research is among the highest regarded journals in the area (top 7%) and free-to-authors and free-to-readers. There is an enlightening debate (on this URL) between those who run the journal and Kent Anderson of the Scholarly Kitchen who cannot believe that people will run and work for journals for the good of the community. There is no law of physics that says this doesn't scale. It is simply that most scholars would rather the taxpayer and students paid for the administration publishing (either as author-side or reader-side) so the scholars don't have to do the work. And they've managed ot get 10 B USD per year. If scholars regarded publishing as part of their role, of if they were prepared to involved the wider community (as Wikipedia has done) we could have a much more C21 type of activity - innovative and valuable to the whole world rather than just academia. It would cost zero, but it would be much cheaper than any current model. And of course we now have a complete free map of the whole world (openstreetmap.orghttp://openstreetmap.org) which is so much better than other alternatives that many people and organizations are switching to it. And, for many years, it didn't have a bank account and existed on marginal resources from UCL (and probably still does). But most people will regard this as another fairy tale. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era
This is an excellent model and worthy of implementing. What are our scholars waiting for? Wherever and whenever it doesn't quite come to fruition, or when the 'champions' of such journals retire or get bored, entities that formerly might have been called 'publishers' could then fill the gaps with their services, helping academics with these things, possibly in the form of 'gold' OA journals. Jan Velterop On 7 Aug 2012, at 16:11, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone pays the costs. All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid for somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact, there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear). I can only see three options for who pays: reader-side (e.g. the library); author-side (e.g. publication fees); or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. sponsor). There is a fourth option, which works: the scholarly community manage publication through contributed labour and resources and the net amount of cash is near-zero. This is described in http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ where the J. Machine Learning Research is among the highest regarded journals in the area (top 7%) and free-to-authors and free-to-readers. There is an enlightening debate (on this URL) between those who run the journal and Kent Anderson of the Scholarly Kitchen who cannot believe that people will run and work for journals for the good of the community. There is no law of physics that says this doesn't scale. It is simply that most scholars would rather the taxpayer and students paid for the administration publishing (either as author-side or reader-side) so the scholars don't have to do the work. And they've managed ot get 10 B USD per year. If scholars regarded publishing as part of their role, of if they were prepared to involved the wider community (as Wikipedia has done) we could have a much more C21 type of activity - innovative and valuable to the whole world rather than just academia. It would cost zero, but it would be much cheaper than any current model. And of course we now have a complete free map of the whole world (openstreetmap.org) which is so much better than other alternatives that many people and organizations are switching to it. And, for many years, it didn't have a bank account and existed on marginal resources from UCL (and probably still does). But most people will regard this as another fairy tale. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era
Chris, The nice thing about true open access articles (under a CC-BY licence) is that they can be printed and distributed, even for a profit (CC-BY publishers are not consumed by 'profit-spite'). This is not true for the so-called OA articles which are under a Non-Commercial licence, of course, but they are not real open access). Here lies an opportunity for enterprising minds in developing countries! Best, Jan On 7 Aug 2012, at 17:27, Zielinski, Mr. Chris - bzv wrote: …and don’t forget the cost of printing, paper, glue and postage stamps in the original print version, O Digerati: last time I checked, they weren’t being given away for nothing. While much of the Open Access discussion only applies to digital objects, these existential OA cost comparisons must include the costs of paper versions as well. where there is a paper version at all, Or are we only talking about that motherless object, the online-only journal (useless to many in most developing countries)? Best, Chris Chris Zielinski Coordinator, African Health Observartory and Managing Editor, African Health Monitor WHO Regional Office for Africa BP06 Cité du Djoué, Brazzaville, Congo Brazzaville T: +47 241 39935 M: +242-068 29 79 49 F: +47 241 39503 Geneva: M+41 799 40 3662 Skype: chris.zielinski1 e-mail: zielins...@afro.who.int From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Sally Morris Sent: 07 August 2012 16:00 To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Subject: [GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era Do you think that doesn't entail cost? The people who are doing this work 'free' (and the computer services provided 'free', etc) are all in reality being paid by someone to do their 'real' jobs. And, presumably, the amount of time devoted to those 'real' jobs is accordingly reduced. Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust Sent: 07 August 2012 15:12 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone pays the costs. All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid for somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact, there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear). I can only see three options for who pays: reader-side (e.g. the library); author-side (e.g. publication fees); or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. sponsor). There is a fourth option, which works: the scholarly community manage publication through contributed labour and resources and the net amount of cash is near-zero. This is described inhttp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ where the J. Machine Learning Research is among the highest regarded journals in the area (top 7%) and free-to-authors and free-to-readers. There is an enlightening debate (on this URL) between those who run the journal and Kent Anderson of the Scholarly Kitchen who cannot believe that people will run and work for journals for the good of the community. There is no law of physics that says this doesn't scale. It is simply that most scholars would rather the taxpayer and students paid for the administration publishing (either as author-side or reader-side) so the scholars don't have to do the work. And they've managed ot get 10 B USD per year. If scholars regarded publishing as part of their role, of if they were prepared to involved the wider community (as Wikipedia has done) we could have a much more C21 type of activity - innovative and valuable to the whole world rather than just academia. It would cost zero, but it would be much cheaper than any current model. And of course we now have a complete free map of the whole world (openstreetmap.org) which is so much better than other alternatives that many people and organizations are switching to it. And, for many years, it didn't have a bank account and existed on marginal resources from UCL (and probably still does). But most people will regard this as another fairy tale. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: First use of the phrase open access?
Gary,
About half a year before the BOAI meeting in December of 2001, in the early
summer of 2001, BioMed Central already used the term on its web site (BioMed
Central's unshakeable commitment to open access.). And ever since. See Wayback
Machine 9 July 2001:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010709143907/http://www.biomedcentral.com/.
Best,
Jan Velterop
On 7 Aug 2012, at 00:29, Omega Alpha | Open Access wrote:
Greetings. Does anyone know who/when first used the phrase open access to
refer to toll free publication and/or access to scholarly literature, though
not necessarily yet as a technical term?
Could this be a candidate? I'm reading the transcript of Stevan Harnad's
presentation: Implementing Peer review on the Net: Scientific Quality
Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals in the Proceedings of the 1993
International Conference on Refereed Electronic Journals, 1-2 October1993.
Winnipeg: University of Manitoba, 1994, 8.1-8.14, and come across the
following excerpt:
Enter anonymous ftp ('file transfer protocol'--a means of retrieving
electronic files interactively). The paper chase proceeds at its usual tempo
while an alternative means of distributing first preprints and then reprints
is implemented electronically. An electronic draft is stored in a 'public'
electronic archive at the author's institution from which anyone in the world
can retrieve at any time….The reader can now retrieve the paper for himself,
instantly, and without ever needing to bother the author, from anywhere in
the world where the Internet stretches--which is to say, in principle, from
any institution of research or higher learning where a fellow-scholar is
likely to be.
Splendid, n'est-ce pas? The author-scholar's yearning is fulfilled: open
access to his work for the world peer community. The reader-scholar's needs
and hopes are well served: free access to the world scholarly literature (or
as free as a login on the Internet is to an institutionally affiliated
academic or researcher)…. (8.4-8.5)
The use here is clearly not yet technical, and yet it has all the earmarks of
future application. The words access, open, and free are used
repeatedly in the Proceedings, but I was unable to find any the phrase open
access was used elsewhere.
I suppose the next question would be: At what point did this informal and
(perhaps) coincidental use become formalized into a technical signifier?
Curious and interested.
Gary F. Daught
Omega Alpha | Open Access
http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com
Advocate for open access academic publishing in religion and theology
oa.openaccess@ gmail.com | @OAopenaccess
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: First use of the phrase open access?
In the summer of 2001, I was commissioned by WHO to write a paper summarizing
the spate of free and low cost initiatives that had appeared on the
publishing horizon and their possible benefits to developing countries. Looking
back through my archives I see that, with a consultant's magpie instinct, my
first title for the study was Open Access Initiatives, and the term open
access occurs frequently throughout the paper - evidence that quite a few
people must have been calling it that in early 2001 (I certainly didn't come up
with the term!).
Don't forget that, at the time, open initiatives were the new black - open
source, open knowledge, open archives, even open money!
Chris
__
Chris Zielinski
WHO Regional Office for Africa
TOffice: +47 241 39935 THome: +47 241 39400
M: +242-068 29 79 49 F: +47 241 39503
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Jan Velterop
Sent: 07 August 2012 17:11
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: Omega Alpha | Open Access
Subject: [GOAL] Re: First use of the phrase open access?
Gary,
About half a year before the BOAI meeting in December of 2001, in the early
summer of 2001, BioMed Central already used the term on its web site (BioMed
Central's unshakeable commitment to open access.). And ever since. See Wayback
Machine 9 July 2001:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010709143907/http://www.biomedcentral.com/http://web.archive.org/web/20010709143907/http:/www.biomedcentral.com/.
Best,
Jan Velterop
On 7 Aug 2012, at 00:29, Omega Alpha | Open Access wrote:
Greetings. Does anyone know who/when first used the phrase open access to
refer to toll free publication and/or access to scholarly literature, though
not necessarily yet as a technical term?
Could this be a candidate? I'm reading the transcript of Stevan Harnad's
presentation: Implementing Peer review on the Net: Scientific Quality Control
in Scholarly Electronic Journals in the Proceedings of the 1993 International
Conference on Refereed Electronic Journals, 1-2 October1993. Winnipeg:
University of Manitoba, 1994, 8.1-8.14, and come across the following excerpt:
Enter anonymous ftp ('file transfer protocol'--a means of retrieving
electronic files interactively). The paper chase proceeds at its usual tempo
while an alternative means of distributing first preprints and then reprints is
implemented electronically. An electronic draft is stored in a 'public'
electronic archive at the author's institution from which anyone in the world
can retrieve at any timeThe reader can now retrieve the paper for himself,
instantly, and without ever needing to bother the author, from anywhere in the
world where the Internet stretches--which is to say, in principle, from any
institution of research or higher learning where a fellow-scholar is likely to
be.
Splendid, n'est-ce pas? The author-scholar's yearning is fulfilled: open
access to his work for the world peer community. The reader-scholar's needs and
hopes are well served: free access to the world scholarly literature (or as
free as a login on the Internet is to an institutionally affiliated academic or
researcher) (8.4-8.5)
The use here is clearly not yet technical, and yet it has all the earmarks of
future application. The words access, open, and free are used repeatedly
in the Proceedings, but I was unable to find any the phrase open access was
used elsewhere.
I suppose the next question would be: At what point did this informal and
(perhaps) coincidental use become formalized into a technical signifier?
Curious and interested.
Gary F. Daught
Omega Alpha | Open Access
http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com
Advocate for open access academic publishing in religion and theology
oa.openaccess@ gmail.comhttp://gmail.com | @OAopenaccess
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.orgmailto:GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Many apologies
Dear All, I fear I let through a spam message by mistake. Many apologies, I have been on the move today and was trying to keep the flow going using, variously, an iPad and my cell phone. I will do my best not to let it happen again. Richard Poynder GOAL Moderator ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
